Chapter 10

1. Chapter 10 POLICY IMPLIMENTATION: GETTING PEOPLE TO CARRY OUT A POLICY

2. Focus Questions • Is implementing new policies difficult? • What does research tell us about successful and unsuccessful implementation? • How can a school leader plan a policy implementation that increases the likelihood of success? • What courses of action are open to school leaders who are expected to implement a policy that they or important stakeholders oppose? )

3. THE SURPRISING DIFFICULTY OF IMPLEMENTATION • As an experienced political leader, Truman knew that the mere fact that a president, legislature, or court has promulgated a policy does not mean that people will immediately execute their orders; in fact, many official policies are never implemented at all, and many others are implemented only partially or incorrectly. Implementation can never be taken for granted.

4. As with the other stages of the policy process, school leaders in charge of implementing a policy must think about what they are doing and plan carefully. • Of all the stages of the policy process, implementation is the one with which education leaders call least avoid involvement.

5. Conceivably, they could work for years without contacting a member of the state legislature or paying attention to issue definition or agenda setting. But they cannot work for even one year in a leadership position without being required to implement a policy. Indeed, to a great extent their jobs can be summarized in two words: policy implementation.

6. RESEARCH ON IMPLEMENTATION Implementation is the stage of the policy process in which a policy formally adopted by a governmental body is put into practice, It is “the process of carrying out authoritative public policy directives" . The major actors in he implementation arena are the implementers. Formal implementers are government officials who have the legal authority to see that a new policy is put into effect. Intermediaries are implementers to whom the formal implementers delegate the responsibility to help with implementation. They are all the people and groups who operate between the formal implementers and the point at which the policy impacts the target population, usually students.

7. When the USDOE is implementing a policy, the intermediaries include SDEs, school boards, district administrators, and--most preeminently--classroom teachers. • During the implementation of a policy that originated at the state level, the professional employees of local dislike (both administrators and teachers) are the intermediaries. • Locally developed policies are implemented by intermediaries such as building principals and teachers. • Successful implementation depends upon developing and maintaining both will and the capacity of the intermediaries.

8. This implementation research grew out of practical concerns. In the 1950s and 1960s, the federal government provided new funding for numerous education reforms, such as revised science curricula and compensatory education for disadvantaged children. Naturally, federal officials wanted to know if these millions of dollars were achieving the intended results. Therefore, they commissioned quantitative evaluations of the programs. The results were surprising. Many of the statistical findings were so puzzling that researchers decided to observe what was actually going on at the program sites—in other words, they wanted to study them using qualitative research methods.

9. They found that their statistical results were peculiar because many federal programs were nonevents. Nothing had changed because nothing was happening. This discovery stimulated research on implementation itself. The implementation research can be divided into two generations. The first generation began to appear in print in the early 1970s; the second, in the late 1970s. Like the generations of a family, who are born at different times but continue to live side by side for decades, both generations of implementation research are very much alive today.

10. First Generation Research-The Difficulty of Implementation Overview. First-generation implementation research focuses on the difficulty--in some cases the impossibility--of policy implementation. Researchers attribute the extreme difficulty of implementation to various causes. In-Depth Look at a Typical Study. In the late 1960s, Gross et al, conducted a yearlong case study of an attempt to introduce a policy change in an elementary school located in the slums of a New England city. The reform required teachers to modify their pedagogy and classroom role. They were supposed to stop running teacher-centered classrooms and become “catalytic role models."

11. “Catalytic" teachers "assisted children to learn according to their interests throughout the day in self-contained classrooms" . Children's activities were supposed to include lots of “fun" learning kits and games. Before they began their fieldwork, the researchers expected that the major barrier to implementation would be teacher opposition. On the contrary, however, all the teachers at Cambire School (a pseudonym) supported the innovation because it was consistent with the open education movement, whose ideals they espoused. Nonetheless, by the end of the year the teachers had lost their enthusiasm for the change. Almost all reverted to their former teaching methods.

12. One commented in a May interview: • I have to admit.. . I am failing to awake as much effort as I was in the past because of my doubts about the assumptions and values . . . and also the effect of this thing on the kids when you let them go. • In their analysis of the situation, the researchers identified five barriers to effective implementation. The first four caused the last one to develop. They were: • I. The teachers never really understood the change. • 2. The teachers did not know how to use the new pedagogy. • 3. The materials needed to establish open classrooms were not available. • 4. The culture and institutional organization of the school were not consistent with the requirements of the new policy. • 5. The teachers became discouraged and lost their motivation to implement. Gross et al. (1971) concluded their book with a call for more research; over the next decades, hundreds of researchers responded.

13. Lessons From The First Generation. The major lesson that first-generation research teaches is that implementation is difficult. Before the early studies of implementation appeared, many people assumed-like Truman's caricature of lke-that “when people receive authoritative policy directives, they naturally follow them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact that a government body has come up with a new policy does not mean that it will be followed. The implementers may not want to follow it, or they may not be able to. Moreover, change is hard and the status quo comfortable. Policies are implemented only if the formal implementers and the intermediaries are willing and able to work hard to put them in place.

14. Second Generation Research-Analyses of Failure and Success • Overview. Second-generation research studies both successful and unsuccessful implementations, attempting to determine why some policies are fully implemented and others are not. The best known early research of this type was the Rand Change Agent Study. • In 1973, under contract with the U.S. Office of Education (USOE), Rand researchers began a multiyear investigation of the implementation of 293 federal projects in 18 states. • Like first-generation researchers, the Rand team drew a largely negative conclusion: “In most cases, the innovations funded by federal seed money had not taken root" . Even so, they did find some success stories among the 293 projects.

15. In the official report to the USOE, Berman and McLaughlin sought to explain these differences among the projects. They decided that successful implementation was not a mechanical process of following recipes from a policy "cookbook." • Rather, a process of “mutual adaptation" had occurred in the successful projects. Mutual adaptation involved changes in both the implementers' behavior and in the details of the policy designs, which was modified to fit local circumstances. The Rand Change Agent Study clearly found that implementation, though difficult, was possible. Soon other implementation researchers began to report similar findings.

16. In-Depth Look at a Typical Study. • In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Huberman and Miles (1984) conducted a USDOE-funded, three-year study of the implementation of various "school improvements." Although their study looked at 146 schools, they selected 12 schools for in-depth, comparative case studies. • Their book, Innovation Up Close: How School Improvement Works, reports their findings from these twelve sites. • The schools were located "in rural, urban, and suburban settings in 10 states from Maine to California" , and they achieved a range of results. Huberman and Miles concluded that two of the implementations were extremely successful, two were miserable failures, and the rest fell somewhere in between.

17. They were not content, however, with merely chronicling success rates. Rather, they described their purpose in writing the book as “to show just what happened in the course of these school improvement efforts, to explain why it happened, and to suggest the implications for changes . . . elsewhere" . • Consistent with the findings of the first-generation research, Huberman and Miles discovered that implementation-especially early implementation-was difficult. Common problems reported by teachers were similar to those observed 15 years earlier at Cambire School. • At the sites where implementation succeeded, however, this painful early period eventually ended. After teachers had mastered the components of the change, they felt proud and self-confident. At the unsuccessful sites, feelings were quite different; discouragement and burnout were often reported.

18. At the conclusion of the implementation period, the policy change had been institutionalized at the five most successful sites. It was there to stay. At the other schools, various scenarios were played out. Turnover in the project’s leadership, the loss of administrative support, and budget crises were among the factors contributing to the demise or declining importance of the failed policies. • In their book, Huberman and Miles (1984) divided the 12 schools they studied in-depth into four "families": (1) highly successful implementations, (2) relatively successful implementations, (3) relatively unsuccessful implementations, (4) unsuccessful implementations. The story of what happened in each family is illuminating.

19. Both highly successful implementations had been initiated by central office administrators who were deeply committed to the new program. Both projects were ambitious ones requiring substantial change in teachers' classroom practice. • However, although much change was demanded, the new policy fit well into the district and was consistent with its philosophy. • Although the central office administrators who advocated the innovation pressured principals and teachers to implement it, they offered strong assistance in the form of materials, training, and consultants throughout implementation. • The researchers commented about these two schools: "Local administrators used muscle along with tutoring and tenderness"

20. The four relatively successful schools followed a different path. Because the new policies addressed well-recognized problems in these districts, a crusading atmosphere developed among the teachers. They were strongly committed to making the programs work in order to solve the problems. • Both central office support and leaders' preparations for implementation were adequate, but the real key to the success of these projects was the willingness of many teachers to work long hours to master new skills. • Although district administrators exerted little pressure and also provided little assistance, the teachers in the Schools helped each other a great deal. As time passed, however, many teachers experienced burnout and opted to weaken the innovations.

21. The four relatively unsuccessful schools had adopted modest policy changes that demanded little of them. Their district leaders, who had been supportive at first, quickly lost interest after implementation began. They offend little assistance, and when principals and teachers approached them with requests for permission to downsize their projects even further, they readily agreed. • “The administrators 'helped' most by granting latitude to make changes," Huberman and Miles (1984) observed. The result, however, was that the policy changes were never truly implemented. • The researchers considered two projects failures. In both instances, district-level administrators had launched policy changes as part of broader strategies for personal career development. Their programs were poorly designed, and these leaders were never really interested in implementation.

22. They neither prepared carefully for implementation nor offered assistance to principals and teachers. Considerable resistance to both policies developed; the building principals spearheaded it. Before long, implementation ground to a halt. Huberman and Miles did not criticize the uncooperative principals, however. They concluded: "In a sense, these two ‘failures' can be seen as a successful effort by users to protect their schools against poorly conceived ideas" • Lessons From the second Generation. Like first-generation implementation research, the research of the second generation suggests that implementation is difficult. Many policies-perhaps most-are never really implemented. • Among those policies that are not implemented, a watered down version is often put in place. Sometimes nothing changes at all.

23. This means that the people responsible for an implementation can never take it for granted that those under them will put a policy into effect simply because they are supposed to. • The research of the second generation suggests that implementation is possible. Although in successful implementations a process of "mutual adaptation" occurs, which changes both the design of the policy and the behavior of the implementers, the core and the spirit of the new policy do take effect. • Success requires hard work and pressure. It may cause some implementer to burn out. But success can and does happen. • Most important, second-generation research suggests why some implementations succeed whereas others fail.

24. HOW TO IMPLEMENT A NEW POLICY • It describes the process chronologically, startings with mobilization for implementation, moving on to implementation proper, and concluding with the institutionalization of the new policy. Mobilizing for Implementation • Mobilization is probably the most crucial step in policy implementation; serious errors here almost always doom a project to failure. Motives for Adopting a New Policy. • The first, and most important, question is, Do we have good reasons for adopting a new policy? The research on implementation suggests that both good and bad reasons for adopting policies exist. The worst reason for adopting a policy is that a few leaders want to build their reputations as innovators in order to advance their careers.

25. Typically, when a policy is adopted as part of a career building scheme, the key leaders receive job offers in the middle of implementation and leave. When that happens, the implementation falls apart, leaving disillusionment in its wake. Even when the hoped-for jobs never materialize, suck implementations are usually poorly planned and consist of more image than substance . • Another poor reason to adopt a new policy is the belief that it will enhance the district's reputation as a progressive, cutting edge system. Innovation for the sake of innovation frequently fails because the implementers sense (accurately) that the new policy is just this year's fad. • As a result, they never take it seriously. Innovation for the sake of innovations also creates an atmosphere of skepticism about all change. Experts find that not attempting any policy change is better than adopting a new policy for either of these poor reasons.

26. Only two good reasons exist for adopting a new policy. The first is that it will help solve a bona fide, well-recognized problem. For example, district leaders might choose to change from junior highs to middle schools in order to address the growing alienation of preadolescents. • If they are able to articulate this genuine problems clearly and explain how the proposed policy change will address it, they should find that building support for adopting the new policy is relatively easy. Such support will improve the likelihood of a successful implementation.

27. The second strong reasons for adopting a new policy is to build the capacity of the implementers so they can eventually introduce other changes. • For instance, a superintendent may decide that, in order to encourage the development of stronger leadership skills among teachers, the district should introduce site-based decision making. • After some experience with decision making, the faculty will have, one hopes, developed the capacity for handling other changes, such as working in teams and mentoring beginning teachers.

28. Appropriateness of the New Policy. The second question leaders should consider before adopting a new policy is, Is this polity appropriate for our school or district? Finding new ideas about how to do things in schools is not hard. Every education journal, every education conference, and many politicians' speeches abound with suggestions. What is hard is determining which of these many possible policy changes are suitable for the specific context within which one works. • Figure 10.1 lists the major issues that should be considered.

29. Is the proposed policy consistent with the school's or district's vision statement or philosophy? • Is it consistent with the school's or district's assessed needs? • Is it consistent with the school's or district's priorities? • Is it consistent with the level of available and potentially available resources? • Is it consistent with the values of the community? • Does evidence exist that it has been effective with student populations such as the school's or district's in terms of: -age? -racial or ethnic background? -gender composition? -socioeconomic class? -English language proficiency? -life experience? Figure 10.1 Determining whether a policy is appropriate for a specific context.

30. Adequate Support. The third question leaders should ask themselves is, Does the policy we are considering have sufficient support among key stakeholders? Policy implementations are as political as policy formulation and adoption in a legislative arena; this means that a policy can be derailed by unwilling stakeholders as quickly as it can be killed in a hostile committee. Therefore, assessing the level of support the proposed policy enjoys is important. Above all, considering the level of support among the major implementers is essential.

31. Planning for Implementation. After making the decision to implement a new policy, leaders must plan the implementation. Although planning is essential, the research somewhat paradoxically suggests that leaders can also overplan. They should engage in what Louis and Miles (1990) call evolutionary planning. By all means they should have a plan, especially for the crucial first weeks of implementation, but they should be prepared to revise it as experience suggests needed changes. As the project evolves, they should modify their plan, adapting it in response not only to experience but also to changes in the environment such as altered levels of resources or shifting political configurations.

32. Planning by Forward Mapping. The group in charge of planning should try to anticipate all the major prerequisites for beginning the implementation. • This is not easy to do. Putting most new policies into practice requires first mustering a broad range of resources-such as materials, equipment, trainers, consultants, and suitable spaces. • The exact nature of what is essential to the project is not always obvious during planning. Yet the absence of some resources in the early weeks of implementation can prove fatal. Therefore, school leaders are wise to anticipate as much as possible.

33. Principal:(1) Smith checks her watch (2) and then calls the regular (3) meeting of her school council to order. Almost all the representatives (4) are present, seated around a conference table (5)”'The meeting of the Maple Grove Elementary School Council is called to order," (6) she announces. 'The first agenda (7) item is the minutes of the last meeting. They were distributed to you last week. Do I hear a motion to approve them?“ "So move," 1. Should principals chair the councils? 2. When will these meetings be held? Will representatives need release time for them? 3. How often should meetings be held? Does a potential conflict exist with the master contracts 4. What groups should be represented and how should representatives be selected? TABLE 10.1 A Scenario With Practical Questions Scenario Practical Questions

34. (8) responds a teacher. This motion is seconded promptly and passed unanimously, but the meeting bogs down on the next agenda item, a change in planning periods. The upper- and lower-grade teachers disagree on this issue and spend the better part of an hour discussing it, sometimes heatedly (9)At length, however, they reach a compromise (10) that all can accept. At this point they decide to hold another meeting to discuss the rest of the agenda and vote to adjourn. 5. Do all schools have a room of the right size for council meetings and I furniture appropriate for participative decision making? 6. How has the principal learned to use parliamentary procedure? 7. How much extra clerical time and materials will be required to prepare for meetings? 8. How have the teachers learned parliamentary procedure? 9. How have the teachers learned to I be assertive and to manage conflicts? 10. How have the teachers learned lo negotiate their differences?

35. Planning for Governance Issues • 1.Discuss parameters with superintendent. • 2.Discuss parameters with school board president. • 3.Based on (1) and (2), convene a governance committee. • 4.Governance committee develops recommended governance document detailing: council composition, meeting frequency, chairmanship, (s)election processes, and so forth. Planning for Staff Development Issues • 1.Identify possible trainers in parliamentary procedure, assertiveness, conflict resolution, negotiating, and so forth. • 2.Schedule preimplementation training sessions. • 3.Discuss times for later training sessions.

36. Planning for Improving the Setting • 1.Check available rooms and furniture in each building. • 2.Discuss meeting times with superintendent and both contract managers. • 3.Are release time or common planning periods or both possible? • 4.Discuss clerical implications with clerical supervisors and selected secretaries. • 5.Increase budget for clerical supplies as needed. Figure 10.2 Plans for implementing site-based decision making.

37. TABLE 10.2 Implementation Problems Identified by Principals Teacher time and energy Money Arranging staff development Ongoing communication Limitations of facilities Teacher morale/resistance Lack of skills among staff Slow progress Disagreement over goals Maintaining interest Overambitious project Unexpected crises Competition with other new project

38. Figure 10.3 Checklist for assessing space needs. • 1. Classrooms are large enough tab for new teaching methods • 2. Classrooms/offices have sufficient storage space for new equipment or materials. • 3. Classrooms/offices are wired for modern technology. • 4. Adequate office space can be provided. • 5. Secure storage areas for new equipment can be provided. • 6. Facilities are adequately maintained.

39. Pre-start-up training • Follow-up sessions • External consultants • Internal consultants • External trainers • Internal trainers • Visits to other sites conferences • Regular meetings with other implementers • Printed materials • Easing of schedules • Teaching aides • Demonstrations • Chances to exchange materials and tips • Workshops • Formative evaluations • A sympathetic ear • Figure 10.4 Seventeen types of assistance for implementers.

40. TABLE 10.3 Most Common Implementation Problems by Category Program Related People Related Setting Related Weak coordination Unresponsive target Competition from population other organizations Delays Lack of skills Outside pressures Conflicts Negative attitudes Unexpected emergencies Lack of planning Resistance Powerlessness regarding key decisions Contradictory goals Skepticism Physical environment Insufficient resources

41. Break the project up into smaller parts Create task forces to work on problem areas Phase in implementation gradually Train staff to train other staff Tailor training to staff needs Create a representative task force to deal with problems Mandate staff participation Use incentives to encourage participation Transfer unsupportive staff Insulate implementation from community pressures TABLE 10.4 Methods for Coping With Implementation Problems Technical Political Culture Have frequent discussions of project at meetings Have frequent informal discussions with implementers Work to increase consensus on goals Publicize the project Work to improve organizational climate Use motivational techniques (e.g., slogans, t-shirts, etc.)

42. Institutionalization • The final stage of implementation is institutionalization, "the period during which an innovation is incorporated into the organization" . A policy has been fully institutionalized when it has been seamlessly integrated into the routine practices of the school or district. • Institutionalization does not occur because it is the natural end product of implementation. It occurs because advocates of the new policy-most commonly district and building administrators-work deliberately to modify the formal rules and procedures the organization in order to accommodate the policy change permanently.

43. 1.The policy is included in appropriate portions of the school board's policy manual. • 2. Necessary changes have been negotiated in the master contract. • 3. Teacher and administrator evaluation procedures are consistent with the policy • 4. Student evaluation procedures are consistent with the policy. • 5. Necessary training in practices associated with the policy is included in the orientation and induction programs for new teachers and administrators. • 6. All cost items associated with the policy are included in line items of the district's/school's regular operating budget. Figure 10.5 of the checklist for assessing degree of policy institutionalization.

44. IMPLEMENTING UNPOPULAR POLICIES • In the cases large numbers of implementers-sometimes most or virtually all of them may oppose the new policy. Dealing with oppositions and resistance is one of greatest challenges school leaders face. • The challenge is compounded where leaders themselves have serious reservations about the required change through no easy answers are ever found in these situations, this section explaining problems, explaining why opposition occurs and suggesting some ways to with it as well as with open and covert resistance. • It also discusses occasions when school leaders feel that they too must take the paths of resistance.

45. Why Some Policies Are Unpopular • Self-interest. Implementers are unlikely to support policies that they persist as contrary to their own self-interest. • In particular, they almost certainly oppose changes that appear to threaten their job security, chances for promotion, or status in the workplace.

46. Professional Values. Educators are also likely to oppose policies that conflict with their basic professional values. Grace (1995), an English researcher, describes such a situation in the United Kingdom. During the 1980s a number of government reforms changed the roles of both head-teachers (principals) and teachers. • Previously, head-teachers had been expected to exercise pedagogical and moral leadership in their schools; however, government policy reforms dramatically altered their mission. • By the end of the 1980s they were expected to work as managers a competitive market environment, publicizing their schools' scores on examinations. • Although some head-teachers made this transition easily, and even weIcomed it, others experienced considerable difficulty because they disagreed in fundamental ways with the reform.

47. Issues surrounding Resistance • Exit, Voice, and Disloyalty. Weimer and Vining, drawing on Albert Hirschman's classic Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (1910), argue that three responses are possible when asked to implement a policy with which one disagrees: • (1) exit (leaving the organization), (2) voice (speaking up about problems), and (3) disloyalty (quietly or openly failing to conform to the policy). Of course, a single individual may combine these approaches.

48. Token compliance. Or he may have the teachers do all the paperwork, but give them extra time to complete it perhaps letting them use vacation periods to work on their already late reports. • This approach is delayed compliance , Outright sabotage includes fabricating the required reports or "losing" all of the necessary forms and directions.

49. Persuasion. Attempts at persuasion should be preceded by some nonjudgmental listening to opponents as they voice their objections. • Next, school leaders should analyze these objections to determine the root of the problem. More often than not, opponents will feel either that their self-interest is threatened or that the policy change is inconsistent with their values. • They may have objections on both counts. Possibly they do not fully understand the policy change, so their objections are partially or totally unfounded. • ln this case, the leaders of the implementation should provide them wide more information, helping them to see that they really have no legitimate grounds for opposition.

50. Another possible approach is to modify the policy to meet some objections. • Finally, moving strong opponents out of the implementation or excluding them from the outset is often possible.